mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Coefficient Calibration as Selection Pressure in Symbolic Regression

arXiv 2610.10931 ↗First posted 7 Oct 2026cs.LGcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

In memetic symbolic regression, candidate structures are compared after coefficient calibration, so the calibration protocol itself contributes to evolutionary selection. Standard centralized calibration evaluates each structure at its pooled-sample optimum, ignoring how stable this calibration is under covariate shifts, and can thus favor structures whose fit relies on sample-specific coefficients. We propose Dirichlet-Sinkhorn Constant Averaging (DSCA), a calibration strategy that partitions the optimization data into equally sized subsets with different covariate distributions, calibrates each candidate independently on every partition, and evaluates it at the mean of the resulting parameters. We show that the excess loss of DSCA relative to centralized calibration vanishes at the population level for correctly specified, identifiable expressions, whereas under misspecification it persists when partition-specific calibrations do not aggregate to the pooled optimum. On synthetic benchmarks and ten real-world datasets, DSCA improves functional recovery and the accuracy-complexity trade-off over centralized Broyden-Fletcher-Goldfarb-Shanno and Levenberg-Marquardt calibration, under selection by negative log-likelihood and by the Akaike and Bayesian information criteria. Mechanism analyses associate the DSCA excess loss with the generalization gap and show that the effect is not reproduced by repeated centralized fitting. These results indicate that controlled heterogeneous calibration provides a complementary source of selection pressure in symbolic-regression search.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 5 of its 45 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 7 Oct 2026.

Builds on

5 of 45 references.

References · 5

  1. 2019Measuring the Effects of Non-Identical Data Distribution for Federated Visual Classificationcited by 836
  2. 2019Bayesian Symbolic Regressioncited by 77
  3. 2023Interpretable Machine Learning for Science with PySR and SymbolicRegression.jlcited by 36
  4. 2024Benchmarking symbolic regression constant optimization schemescited by 6
  5. 2026Guiding Multi-Objective Genetic Programming with Description Length Improves Symbolic Regression Solutionscited by 2

Built on by

Not cited yet.